netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170901171237.ge7dconrtrog2tah@rob-hp-laptop>
Date:   Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:12:37 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-binding: net: sfp binding documentation

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 04:58:29PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > >     Your example shows there's GPIO phandle *and* specifier.
> > > > 
> > > > Would "GPIO specifier" be enough here?
> > > 
> > >    No, specifier is the cells following GPIO (or any other) phandle.
> > 
> > So this should be "GPIO phandle and specifier of ...", is that correct?
> > 
> > I have found very few (< 4) occurrences of this language in (lots of) '-gpios' 
> > property descriptions under Documentation/devicetree/bindings/. Is this a new 
> > requirement?
> 
> Sometimes it is just easier to refer to another document:
> 
> GPIO, as defined in Documentation/devicetree/binding/gpio/gpio.txt

Yes, and what I care about here is how many GPIOs, direction and active 
state. IOW, worry about the information necessary to validate a specific 
instance is correct. And hopefully someday we'll have a format parseable 
to do that checking, and all the free form text will be gone.

Rob